Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DrunkDuck (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Courcelles 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

DrunkDuck
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails both WP:WEB and WP:GNG. LiteralKa (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable website, passes the GNG. This article discusses the comics in the internet and mentions DrunkDuck as one of the websites in which the most comics are published This one about the purchase of DrunkDuck I would search more, but I won't. Regards,  Diego  talk  18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It was also referenced here. The actual page doesn't seem to have 3rd party references, but references can be found. snaphat (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment wouldn't that fall under trivial mentions? LiteralKa (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No I don't believe so in this case. My understanding is that point of the book is to discuss the evolution of comic books. The reference is used in the book to show an example of the largest distributors of online comics. snaphat (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, just 6 words on the topic, buried in a footnote, is about as trivial of a trivial mention as a trivial mention can get. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Nominator is correct here. There are no sources at all in the article, and nothing but the briefest, most trivial of mentions have been provided here, so this misses both WP:WEB and WP:GNG by a long shot. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Abstain: On the one hand, this fails the two criteria under WP:WEB that are more inclusive than WP:GNG. I can't find anything about it winning an award, and DrunkDuck is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The reference here is also trivial. The GNG speaks of "non-trivial" coverage, enough to extract content without using original research, and six words is clearly trivial. However, the article about the purchase of DrunkDuck may be long enough to extract some actual juice from. It's also good that it discusses the site externally, as opposed to just talking about its content. Yet since Google Books only shows you a little bit of the periodical, there's no way of telling how trivial or non-trivial the coverage in that source is. Guideline &amp; Policy Wonk (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a trivial maybe two sentences about Drunk Duck in that article. It's also of course a single source, and we need multiple sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete G&PW and Rangoondispenser have proven that what little coverage exists is incidental and trivial. I have found nothing of substance in a Gnews search. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find anything beyond message boards linking and what has already been mentioned. --Djohns21 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:WEB and WP:GNG. This subject sounds like it ought to have independent, reliable, nontrivial coverage substantiating notability, but I wasn't able to find anything I would consider acceptable via a Google search.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.